[Lokakyy]

Interesting. I was only vaguely aware of that. Do you have any recommended reading on the topic?

Well, it is difficult, considering that there is a lot of research in Finnish, but next to none in English.

I'm afraid Wikipedia (Continuation war, Ryti-Molotov Agreement, Lapland War) is once again the best reading on the topic in English. There are probably multiple articles in historical journals in English, but they are difficult to sort out.

There is a very recent book by a retired US colonel:
Lunde, Henrik O. (2011). Finland's War of Choice: The Troubled German-Finnish Alliance in World War II.

I haven't read it though, and reading the reviews, I seriously doubt that it is very good considering the fact that the author has a very limited understanding of Finnish and none in Russian.

[William_H_Dougherty]

Well, it is difficult, considering that there is a lot of research in Finnish, but next to none in English.

That isn't surprising, unfortunately. My particular niche is the Ostfront / Great Patriotic War and basically the English-language texts on this ends in June 1944 and switch over to the Western Front.

1944 is a gaping hole in my knowledge eastern-front wise. You have the Cannae of Armeegruppe Mitte that summer, a far larger defeat than Stalingrad, involving far more troops than the Normandy Campaign, and most Westerners have no idea what I'm talking about! And that is just one disaster of many for the Germans in the Ostfront!

In March of 1945, attention then switches back to the East, for the events leading up to the Battle of Berlin.

- William Henry Dougherty

[Fasces]

The funny thing about fascists is how quickly they flip from moral relativism to moral absolutism and then back again. Their leaders can switch from pragmatic statesman to uncompromising ideologue within a single speech.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a moral absolutist. The very basis of my nationalism is justified on the grounds that social mores and other such standards differ from community to community and that overarching federalist governments harm these traditions - and that such acts are negative.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Depends on the time frame you are talking about. We could talk about Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union cooperating in the 1920s if we want to go back far enough. However, I'm not sure this (or Munich) is particularly relevant to what Decky was referring to: democracies in wartime "cooperation" with an Axis Power (1939 to 1945).

Decky is some sort of Communist (maybe even Jewish too) who once claimed he would have called for the mass killings of all members of the NSDAP after Germany's surrender in an old thread. He does not base his "good" and "evil" States views on co-operation during war hostilities of 1939-45, but rather seemingly on any positive actions towards Germany under the Hitler regime. That is at least how I see things with him. He is not a democrat nor would have owed his allegiance to France or Britain until the Soviets told him so (he would have been an ally of Nazi Germany until mid-41 as Comintern Commies were during those years).

Signing the "Munich Agreement" and then occupying Bohemia and Moravia and setting up a puppet regime in Slovakia?

Invading and then annihilating the Polish State?

Guaranteeing the Independence of Belgium and then invading it?

We aren't even getting into the treatment of the occupied populations yet.

I don't think many people consider conflict and wars between states 'evil'. I think I can with quite some assurance state not many people would consider your examples evil. Anti-partisan warfare and subsequent genocide is another story.

[William_H_Dougherty]

I don't think many people consider conflict and wars between states 'evil'. I think I can with quite some assurance state not many people would consider your examples evil. Anti-partisan warfare and subsequent genocide is another story.

I have to disagree. The above qualify specifically as Crimes Against Peace ("planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing") and played a role in the conviction of several high ranking nazis at the Nuremberg Trails.

Anyways, you did sort of make my next point: we can start really low with Germany and then work our way up, War Crime by War Crime, to the more horrendous examples you've given.

- WHD

[Fasces]

Crimes against peace did not exist in 1939.

[Smilin' Dave]

Crimes against peace did not exist in 1939.

Legally this is true, however it could be argued that the moral basis for it (eg. planning a war, annexing neighbours) was still as valid then as it was when it was determined a crime after the war. I don't think anyone presented a defence at Nuremberg saying that the Nazis were simply unaware that their war planning was wrong because it wasn't illegal at the time.

[Fasces]

I don't believe persons should be prosecuted for actions which were not illegal, especially by hypocritical powers who had done plenty of their own planning and annexations on every continent of the world.

That I do not agree with the Nuremberg trials does not mean I consider the Nazis to not be in the wrong. I simply also consider the imperial powers of the Western world to be equally guilty.

[Smilin' Dave]

I don't believe persons should be prosecuted for actions which were not illegal, especially by hypocritical powers who had done plenty of their own planning and annexations on every continent of the world.

From memory equivilent actions in U-boat warfare were a successful defence at Nuremberg. However you'll struggle to argue that during the same time period the other powers (with the possible exception of the Soviet Union) were engaging in equivilent actions in the lead up to war.

That I do not agree with the Nuremberg trials does not mean I consider the Nazis to not be in the wrong. I simply also consider the imperial powers of the Western world to be equally guilty.

In the category of industrial style genocide I would suggest that the Nazis were on their own.

[Fitzcarraldo]

In the category of industrial style genocide I would suggest that the Nazis were on their own.

Perhaps. However the actions towards ethnic Germans in Central European and Eastern European Marxist regimes immediately post war, i.e. ethnic expulsions, and the Soviet mass deportations of certain Muslim nationalities in the Caucasus and surrounding regions, are definitely genocidal. All major Allied regimes were complicit in the expulsion of millions of Germans post-WWII.

[Fasces]

From memory equivilent actions in U-boat warfare were a successful defence at Nuremberg. However you'll struggle to argue that during the same time period the other powers (with the possible exception of the Soviet Union) were engaging in equivilent actions in the lead up to war.

What actions would that be? Note, that my issues are purely technical. I do believe that, fundamentally, might makes right, and that these leaders could have been strung up for violating the Treaty of Versailles, among other things.

In the category of industrial style genocide I would suggest that the Nazis were on their own.

Neither the methodology or the mechanisms were new - it was simply a question of scale. But I will not excuse the Holocaust.

[Smilin' Dave]

What actions would that be?

I figured we were talking about the 'planning a war of aggression' charges at Nuremberg. It's pretty hard to believe that say Britain had a plan of aggression against Germany prior to 1939, given their apparent poor preparation and reluctance to act once the war did break out.

Neither the methodology or the mechanisms were new - it was simply a question of scale.

I may be mistaken by I was under the impression that purpose built gas chambers for mass killing was fairly unique.

However the actions towards ethnic Germans in Central European and Eastern European Marxist regimes immediately post war, i.e. ethnic expulsions, and the Soviet mass deportations of certain Muslim nationalities in the Caucasus and surrounding regions, are definitely genocidal

You would have to use a pretty odd definition of genocide to put mass deportations in the same category as purpose built extermination facilities.

All major Allied regimes were complicit in the expulsion of millions of Germans post-WWII.

The organised expulsions you are referring too all took place in Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union itself, in what way are other powers responsible for that? Without question the Soviet Union committed crimes again humanity; before, during and after the war. However it wasn't just the Soviets at Nuremberg, and they were not the only power pushing for the trials post war. So it is a bit hard to dismiss all the powers on the basis of one participant.

[Fasces]

I figured we were talking about the 'planning a war of aggression' charges at Nuremberg. It's pretty hard to believe that say Britain had a plan of aggression against Germany prior to 1939, given their apparent poor preparation and reluctance to act once the war did break out.

Not against Germany, no, though to say they had not planned many a war of aggression is imbicilic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union, which did foresee such a conflict, was also one of the hangmen.

I may be mistaken by I was under the impression that purpose built gas chambers for mass killing was fairly unique.

The use of gas to kill prisoners was not invented by the Germans. The idea of genocide was not invented by the Germans. Neither were a crime prior to the Nuremberg trials. Both had unprosecuted precedents.

[Decky]

The use of gas to kill prisoners was not invented by the Germans. The idea of genocide was not invented by the Germans. Neither were a crime prior to the Nuremberg trials. Both had unprosecuted precedents.

Indeed, Britain invented concentration camps for use against the Boers in South Africa for example.

[Fitzcarraldo]

You would have to use a pretty odd definition of genocide to put mass deportations in the same category as purpose built extermination facilities.

The Polish-Jew lawyer Raphael Lemkin who coined the bastard term 'genocide', did not exclusively define the term as mass killings of the particular group. Indeed, he even warned against this limited definition. Mass deportations of the pecuilar Germanic nationals living for centuries in Central and Eastern European states would be included in his broad definition. As would the actions against Muslim nations in the Soviet Union from 1943 to 1956.

The organised expulsions you are referring too all took place in Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union itself, in what way are other powers responsible for that? Without question the Soviet Union committed crimes again humanity; before, during and after the war. However it wasn't just the Soviets at Nuremberg, and they were not the only power pushing for the trials post war. So it is a bit hard to dismiss all the powers on the basis of one participant.

The expulsions were agreed upon by the United States and the United Kingdom at the Potsdam Conference. It is true that the Soviets and Yugoslavs were expelling, killing and persecuting German ethnics in their control before, but the Allies agreed to mass expulsions of Germans in principle at Potsdam.

And it is not just because the Soviets had judges and presented evidence at the Nuremberg Trials that makes it laughably ridiculous, it is also some of the created terms and their meanings that are equally ridiculous. For instance 'war of aggression' (and 'defensive war') is a blatently nonsense term. All armed forces in conflict act aggressively and defensively at differing times or even lines, it is rather cheap propaganda term in actual fact. International law has been a joke post-Nuremberg. It was a drastic and terribly destructive change compared to the previous Westphalian order. European law and order was destroyed by American and Bolsheviks at Nuremberg.

[Smilin' Dave]

Not against Germany, no, though to say they had not planned many a war of aggression is imbicilic.

In the interwar period precisely who did the British plan an aggressive war against? Contemporary events are relevant because
1) Standards change
2) It would be a fairly silly argument to use say, The Hundred Years War, as example of hypocracy in 1945-1946.

Not to mention that the Soviet Union, which did foresee such a conflict, was also one of the hangmen.

In the same way having relatively benign Finland paired with the Axis doesn't negate crimes committed by individual Axis nations, having the Soviet Union has part of the Allies does not by default implicate all Allied nations with war crimes.

The use of gas to kill prisoners was not invented by the Germans. The idea of genocide was not invented by the Germans.

I dispute neither of these things, but I repeat that industrial style genocide was something invented in Germany. For example individual gassings of prisoners is not unusual of, but mass gassing wasn't common and purpose built facilities for it were unique. The Nazis don't appear to have referred to any existing examples in constructing their gas chambers, and indeed they had to test the principle a few times first.

Neither were a crime prior to the Nuremberg trials. Both had unprosecuted precedents.

There had been attempts to prosecute the Armenian genocide, the trials really only fell apart for political reasons. So the idea that nobody thought it a crime prior to Nuremberg is incorrect.

Indeed, Britain invented concentration camps for use against the Boers in South Africa for example.

The term and modern concept of concentration camps actually comes from the Spainish and their wars in Cuba. Really the idea of placing a broadly defined 'enemy' group in a camp under guard wasn't new even then. Rounding them up for the purpose of wiping them out however was not common.

The Polish-Jew.

Lemkin's heritage is totally irrelevant to this discussion

Raphael Lemkin who coined the bastard term 'genocide', did not exclusively define the term as mass killings of the particular group. Indeed, he even warned against this limited definition. Mass deportations of the pecuilar Germanic nationals living for centuries in Central and Eastern European states would be included in his broad definition. As would the actions against Muslim nations in the Soviet Union from 1943 to 1956.

Lemkin's definition did however require an intent for destruction, which was not in evidence in the examples you give.

The expulsions were agreed upon by the United States and the United Kingdom at the Potsdam Conference. It is true that the Soviets and Yugoslavs were expelling, killing and persecuting German ethnics in their control before, but the Allies agreed to mass expulsions of Germans in principle at Potsdam.

That's pretty misleading. Point XII of the Potsdamn Agreement:
- Actually called for an immediate halt to expulsions on the basis of further consideration being needed.
- Stated any further expulsions were to be organised and humane. This runs counter to your claim they were complicit in genocide per the intent requirement I noted above.
- There is no reason to believe that not having the agreement would have stopped the deportations. Given the choice between doing nothing and at least trying to make the process more humane etc. of course the western Allied leaders picked the latter.

All armed forces in conflict act aggressively and defensively at differing times or even lines

Which is great except at Nuremberg the offence was in relation to the planning of a war, not how the war itself was run. And Nazi war plans were not defensive in any sense.

European law and order was destroyed by American and Bolsheviks at Nuremberg.

Had the Nazis decided not to destroy European law and order in the first place it never would have come to that.

[Fasces]

In the interwar period precisely who did the British plan an aggressive war against? Contemporary events are relevant because
1) Standards change
2) It would be a fairly silly argument to use say, The Hundred Years War, as example of hypocracy in 1945-1946.

I agree that standards change, however, I was referring to the vast colonial empire built and maintained by the British Empire, often through the use of violence, and the individuals within the British government, such as Winston Churchill, who had used similar methods as Adolf Hitler in colonial governance, as the primary example of hypocrisy. Furthermore, the fact that Allied Powers did attack civilians, knowingly, and with the intent to deplete manpower reserves for both military use and industrial use, such as Dresden, or the firebombings of Japan, shows hypocrisy in the prosecution of 'crimes against humanity'.

In the same way having relatively benign Finland paired with the Axis doesn't negate crimes committed by individual Axis nations, having the Soviet Union has part of the Allies does not by default implicate all Allied nations with war crimes.

It does in this context, as the Soviet Union played an instrumental role in the Nuremberg trials, including selection of defendants (such as Rudolf Hess). When discussing the hypocrisy of the trial itself, the acts of all involved must be invoked.

I dispute neither of these things, but I repeat that industrial style genocide was something invented in Germany. For example individual gassings of prisoners is not unusual of, but mass gassing wasn't common and purpose built facilities for it were unique. The Nazis don't appear to have referred to any existing examples in constructing their gas chambers, and indeed they had to test the principle a few times first.

I dispute that it was invented. Nazi Germany existed in a unique time in which it was capable of doing such acts, and it was not yet taboo. Any other power could have been equally likely to employ such methods in the absence of German use. There is nothing inherently German or unique.

Minor details may be different, but the use of concentration camps was not German, nor the use of poison gas chambers as a method of execution.

There had been attempts to prosecute the Armenian genocide, the trials really only fell apart for political reasons. So the idea that nobody thought it a crime prior to Nuremberg is incorrect.

I had not heard of it, however, the mechanisms for establishment of international law were at the time formalized and recognized, and genocide was not among those things which were illegal or contrary to any law.

[Smilin' Dave]

I was referring to the vast colonial empire built and maintained by the British Empire, often through the use of violence, and the individuals within the British government, such as Winston Churchill, who had used similar methods as Adolf Hitler in colonial governance, as the primary example of hypocrisy. Furthermore, the fact that Allied Powers did attack civilians, knowingly, and with the intent to deplete manpower reserves for both military use and industrial use, such as Dresden, or the firebombings of Japan, shows hypocrisy in the prosecution of 'crimes against humanity'.

But we were not talking about the crimes committed in maintaining the Nazi empire or even attacks against civilians. We are talking about the crime of planning an aggressive war... which when it comes to WWII, the Nazis were clearly guilty.

I dispute that it was invented.

Then show an example of where it was done before.

Any other power could have been equally likely to employ such methods in the absence of German use.

Despite a number of contemporaneous crimes elsewhere in the world, no such methods were used. The methods have also not been replicated subsequently, and I think you'll agree there have been no shortage of genocidal campaigns after WWII.

There is nothing inherently German or unique.

I'm not saying it was a special German thing, any more than I thought concentration camps to be a Spanish invention. At most I would argue that it was a product of the Nazi regime. I'm simply stating that in terms of industrial genocide, it happened first in Germany (and if we want to be technical, geographically it was in Poland) and it doesn't seem to have happened that way ever since.

Minor details may be different, but the use of concentration camps was not German, nor the use of poison gas chambers as a method of execution.

Sometimes the parts don't represent the collective effective result.

I had not heard of it

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_Tribunals

In its time the Armenian Genocide was a big deal, and widely publicised and criticised. It really stretches the imagination to believe genocide would be thought to be non-taboo during the inter-war/war period.

however, the mechanisms for establishment of international law were at the time formalized and recognized, and genocide was not among those things which were illegal or contrary to any law.

Lemkin, previously mentioned in this thread, had presented a paper to the League of Nations proposing exactly that in response to events like the Armenian Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Le ... rking_life

There is also the matter of the Leipzig Trials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_War_Crimes_Trial
Where after WWI German military figures were tried, in a German court, for simiar offences to many who would later be tried at Nuremberg etc. The Kaiser avoided trial as Holland refused extradiction. Given this was done in German courts, it is hard to believe German leaders were under any illusion that similar offences in another war would not be considered criminal acts.

Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes by William Schabas has a chapter on the origins of international laws against genocide. It appears to be available on Google Books but I'm currently have trouble loading it.

[Fasces]

But we were not talking about the crimes committed in maintaining the Nazi empire or even attacks against civilians. We are talking about the crime of planning an aggressive war... which when it comes to WWII, the Nazis were clearly guilty.

As were other powers. Or was Stalin taken by surprise by the Nazi offensive? Were there not talks of alliance between every major power in Europe on containing Hitler?

Then show an example of where it was done before.

I cannot. It was the first genocide to occur in the industrialized age. However, the mechanisms used are not as important as the intent. Long before Hitler dreamed of wiping of the Jews, the Mongols wiped out the Khwarezmids. That Temujin was born hundreds of years before the gas chamber is largely irrelevant to me - the act was fundamentally the same.

This being said, I was unaware about the legal attitudes in Germany regarding genocide, or the legal reaction to the Armenian case. Let it not be said that I will not admit my errors. There may be precedent in the trials of crimes against humanity, though the idea of a crime against peace remains, in my eyes, patently ridiculous.

[Smilin' Dave]

As were other powers. Or was Stalin taken by surprise by the Nazi offensive? Were there not talks of alliance between every major power in Europe on containing Hitler?

- Containment is not aggression, and I think it pretty clear from the Munch agreement example that the Allies were more interested in peaceful containment than war.
- There isn't much evidence that Stain wasn't taken by surprisein 1941. The Soviet military build up in the same year also wasn't incompatible with a pre-emptive strike against the clearly aggressive Nazi Germany.